John Cramerus U.S. History Should the United States Have Annexed the Philippines?

In 1898, the United States warred with Spain on two fronts; Cuba and the Philippines. This was under the pretext that the Spanish government was treating the natives of both island nations badly, and that the two nations did not deserve to be ruled unjustly. Of course, there were other reasons for the initiation of the war, but keeping with that, the United States ousted the Spanish in a short amount of time from both countries. Then, with the liberation of the countries, America had a choice of how to exert their influence upon those states; Cuba was shortly granted their independence, but the Philippines were another matter. In October of the same year we went to war, we decided to annex the Philippines; gain control of the country and install an American Government upon it. This launched us into a three-year long war against Filipino insurgency, who felt betrayed by the U.S. for both the lack of liberation and strong mistreatment from the occupying forces. While the war did end in 1902, there were still large amounts of freedom fighters, and they were eventually granted their independence in 1946. The questions is, were these the right choices? In a case such as this, it is majorly dependent on the subject, and what that subject would consider relevant. Which does one value more, the principal of civil liberties and the right to self-govern, or an ends justifies the means argument, one that claims that intervention which denies these rights which consequently benefits the denied in some way that is greater than that which has been taken from them is justified. If one decided to value the sovereignty of the Philippines more than a belief that we could help them more than they could help themselves despite objectionable methods, than it matters very little what actually happened; the right answer would be to have given the Philippines their independence, and in the case that they might be attempted to be absorbed by another country aid them in their struggle. If the latter is valued more, however, then facts are what are needed to justify the annexation. Despite all that, however, there is yet still one more thing that must be considered; the accountability of the United States government to its statements and its own principals. The U.S. went into the Spanish-American War claiming they were fighting for independence, for the rights of the poor downtrodden countries against the unjustified Spanish despot. As stated by a platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League in October of 1899: We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islandsWe protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish Methods (Document A). From a purely military and respectful perspective, to continue the annexation of the Philippines would have made us no different from the Spanish, taking into account especially the fact that the Philippines fought against our rule with just as much vehemence, and we crushed them with just as little empathy.

The opposition to the anti-imperialist faction held a view much like the early stated endsjustifies-the-means perspective. Perhaps a very satisfactory summation of the view of the proannexation faction might be expressed in a speech from a candidate who ran for the U.S. Senate, Albert J. Beveridge, in the election in Indiana, delivered on September 16, 1898: The opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer, the rulethat all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government. We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we govern our children without their consentWould not he people of the Philippines prefer the just, human, civilizing government of this Republic to the savage, bloody Spanish rulefrom which we have rescued them? (Document B). While the senator was boundlessly and incredibly insultingly condescending and patronizing towards the people of the Philippines (comparing them to children?), the point is still well expressed. The Philippines at the time was no non-violent, stable-economyd, democratic republic. They were dying of diseases that any competent medical care could take care of, crimes such as slavery and headhunting were rampant, and there were many places that were separated from the advents of the technology of the era. Could one reasonably say they were capable of competent self-governance or a stable government? According to many, certainly not, including President McKinley (Document C). One of the advantages of making judgments on historical decisions based on their repercussions is that, obviously, there is access to definite information concerning the repercussions. And with that comes also information to much more context of the time than may be afforded by simple opinions expressed in speech in a period where an event may just be in its incubation period. The annexation of the Philippines did come with a three year guerrilla war managed by the natives, this is certainly true, and acts of varying atrocity were committed by the occupying U.S. army, such is also true, to a frightening degree (the population of the Philippines decreased by over one million by the aftermath of the war); despite all that, however, by 1900, there was an observance of the original purpose of the annexation. This wasnt to permanently absorb the Philippines into the United States, there was never any such intention. It was to prepare the Philippines, apparently forcibly if need be, for self-rule. In 1900 the Taft commission was sent to the Philippines, by 1901 William Taft was inaugurated as the Civil Governor of the Philippines, and by 1902 the military rule was removed, putting full executive power to Taft, the then first Governor-General of the Philippines. It was over the next few decades that administrative power was slowly delegated more and more to the Philippines. In the beginning, the American government was very reluctant to allocate any administrative strength to the Filipinos, but in 1907, the first elected Philippine Assembly was formed with an assigned Philippine Commission as higher legislature. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson implemented legislature that would lead to Philippine independence. In 1916, the Jones Act instituted a Philippine Senate and guaranteed eventual independence. The Philippines increasing autonomy were not the only things that were changing inside the country. Foreign trade increased from sixty-two million pesos (with thirteen percent as trade with the

U.S.) to over six hundred million pesos (with sixty-six percent as trade with the U.S.). A health care system was also established that, by the year nineteen-thirty, reduced mortality rates from all causes to that of the United States itself. In addition, crime rates improved; piracy, slaves, and headhunting were all made almost non-existent. A public education system (based on English) was installed. In 1933, due to the Great Depression and American sugar cane companies lobbying for increased amounts of independence of the Philippines from the United States because of their exceptionally low prices for their cane. Successively, the Congress attempted to pass the Hare-HawesCutting act as a Philippine Independence Act, and did so successfully over Herbert Hoovers veto. Although it had been drawn with advice from Philippine commissioner, Philippine legislature rejected the bill because it stated that the U.S. would retain control of certain military naval bases. The following year a revised version was passed, called the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which was accepted. This provided for a plan that would turn the Philippines into a Commonwealth for ten years, after which it would gain its true independence. Immediately afterward, a Constitutional Convention was held in Manila on July 30, 1934, and was ratified on order of one hundred seventy-seven votes for and one against on February 8, 1935. It was approved by the then U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, for that was required by the Act, and then again ratified by popular vote on May 14, 1935. Philippine independence was declared on July 4, 1946, as was allowed by the timetable on the act, despite a rather eventful eleven years (WWII with a Japanese invasion being one such event). So, it cannot be said that the Philippines were not enormously benefited by the United States annexing it succeeding the decades of its dependence. In fact, it was likely that it was the best thing that ever happened to the Philippines bar none. Yet still, the original question is asked, should the United States have annexed the Philippines? Looking back on it from the position of the triumphant descendants, the answer could easily be written down as yes, but in times when the legislature is newly decided, it was not so certain, and, in context, it could easily be considered morally reprehensible. In the end, it boils down to base values; which does one value more? The returns? Or integrity? That is an argument which will never be easily decided.